u/p labor

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

[was: something about Thomas Frank]

cc writes:>Now I leaped a few stages there, and left "productive" and
"unproductive" undefined. Those steps ought to be filled in -- BUT NOT
BY TRYING TO MAKE _ECONOMIC_ SENSE. As soon as you try to prove or
disprove this as a statement about technical economics you will lose
completely the profound historical (cultural) importance of the
distinction.<

there's economics and then there's economics. the unproductive/productive distinction may make no sense in terms of neoclassical economics (though many NCs see government labor as unproductive), but it makes sense in terms of Marxian economics. U labor doesn't contribute to surplus-value, whereas P labor does. 

I don't know if the concept U/P is very useful, though.

jd